ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Multicenter OCT-Based Visual Field Representations via Segmentation-Free 3D CNNs: Forecasting, Longitudinal Variability, and Progression Detection.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate segmentation-free three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (3DCNNs) that derive visual field (VF)-shaped representations from macular optical coherence tomography (OCT) volumes (OCT-based estimated VF; OCT-VF) and to assess their performance in forecasting future Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) measurements and characterizing longitudinal variability in clinical datasets. Methods: The 3DCNN models were trained on 129,007 heterogeneous real-world paired OCT-HFA datasets from 13,366 patients (24,313 eyes) across five institutions using 10-fold cross-validation. Forecasting accuracy for the last HFA visit was evaluated using HFA-only forecasts and hybrid models that combined HFA-anchored intercept with longitudinal slopes derived from both OCT-VF and HFA (AOS-AVG). Longitudinal variability was assessed as residual deviations from linear trends using jackknife resampling. Results: The AOS-AVG yielded the lowest forecasting errors across endpoints and significantly reduced mean absolute error compared with HFA-only forecasts (pointwise thresholds: 24-2, 2.45 vs. 2.68 dB; 10-2, 2.44 vs. 2.65 dB; both P < 0.001). OCT-VF showed significantly lower residual variability than HFA (MD: 24-2, 0.79 vs. 1.13 dB; 10-2, 0.87 vs. 1.07 dB; both P < 0.001). Eyes classified as progression-positive by OCT-VF but negative by HFA exhibited greater perimetric variability and steeper HFA MD decline than true-negative eyes. Conclusions: Hybrid forecasting approaches that incorporate OCT-VF-derived slope information can improve prediction of future visual-field outcomes. The lower variability of OCT-VF representations may also enable detection of progression-related signals that remain obscured by perimetric noise in routine longitudinal monitoring. Translational Relevance: OCT-VF may serve as a complementary tool for precision disease monitoring alongside current automated perimetry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.